Government and Divorce

Top 2. Nov 11, 1997 9:30 PM

» SteveK - Frank: Your article dredges up several conservative myths abo

Frank:

Your article dredges up several conservative myths about the 60s, divorce, and the idyllic marriage.

First, you should know that the correlation between income and marriage is one of the most relentlessly proven in all of sociobiology. In America, men who marry in a given year earn about 50 percent more than men of the same age who do not. And the rest of the world? Anthropologist John Hartung, who has analyzed data from some 850 societies, sums up his findings this way: "The data... say that females go with the money, which is parental investment on the part of males."

If women are attracted to men of means, then it follows that money problems in a marriage put the marriage at risk. And indeed, this is exactly what the data show. Working from the results of the 1990 Census, Donald Hernandez has
irrefutably proven that the financial condition of the family is the best predictor of its
future continuation or dissolution. Among white families where the father has a steady income,
the dissolution rates are lowest. Among black families, the dissolution rates are lowest when
both parents work -- which reflects the fact that black men suffer wage discrimination and need the help of a spouse to keep their families afloat. A lack of these financial supports
means a higher risk of marital failure.

A University of Michigan study following 5,000 families has found that poor families are twice
as likely to divorce as others.

Researchers at the University of Chicago found that inner city black men are over two and a
half times more likely to marry the mothers of their children if they are employed beforehand.
And this finding is true of women as well; the greater a woman's earning potential, the more
likely she is to marry.

All this suggests a solution to the break-up of the lower-class family. The best way to promote
marriage and two-parent families is to empower individuals economically.

Frank, you might also want to explore more of your facts before you write them. You point out that divorce rates did not rise during the Great Depression. True, but divorces costed money, and couples in those economically depressed times couldn't afford it. According to family historian Stephanie Coontz, domestic violence soared during the 1930s, and so did informal separations.

You also miss another crucial point: that according to most polls, marriages are happier today than in the 1950s. These studies also show that second marriages are generally happier than first ones. Divorce serves a useful function: to escape bad marriages. There is nothing so terrible in the world as being in a hellish relationship. In the 1950s, the stigma of divorce kept couples trapped in bad marriages, and that increased the sum total of unhappiness in American society. Indeed, Coontz, in her brilliant book The Way We Never Were, writes: "Leave it to Beaver was not a documentary." She listed the problems of housewives in the 50s: growing stress, alcoholism, dependence on tranquilizers, and other indications of repression and dissatisfaction. By the 1960s, society could no longer tolerate this stifling tradition, and they freed themselves with that decade's social revolutions. The destigmatization of divorce allows individuals to increase their marital happiness, if at least with a more suitable partner.

In his letter above, Dan makes an excellent point: individuals change and evolve as they grow older. I would add that couples may evolve closer together, or they may evolve further apart. To those that evolve further apart, rearranging who is coupled with whom will maximize everyone's happiness.

Your article also hearkens to an ideal that has never been enjoyed at any time in our history: the lifelong marriage. Until 300 years ago, the average life span was 30 years of age. Often it was not unusual for a young woman to be twice married and twice widowed by the age of 22, her husbands having fallen victim to war, disease, crime, dueling or other events, all of which were significantly worse back then. When the Church urged couples to avoid divorce, this wasn't much of a stretch. However, today a person's marriageable years last 60 years, not 10 years. Modern society poses new challenges to marriage that simply did not exist three centuries ago, and it's illogical to apply those archaic rules to today.

I know few Christians will appreciate evolutionary explanations, but human evolution appears to have created the pair-bond to last as long as it takes to raise a child to self-sufficiency. Without a man's help, a woman carrying around the equivalent of an 18 pound bowling ball in prehistoric times would be at an extreme disadvantage for survival. Natural selection has enticed men to help provide for mother and child by creating the emotional rewards of the pair-bond (i.e., marriage). Romantic love, sexual attraction, and monogamous feelings are all the result of hormones and chemicals that cement the relationship. Scientists have even isolated the chemical that causes romantic love: phenylethylalamine (PEA). Interestingly enough, most people's PEA level drops as the relationship continues. Apparently high levels of PEA last only four years. In primitive hunter-gatherer societies, four years is how long it takes children to start participating in hunts and harvests. At that point, the father's investment is much less needed. (Like I said, this is in primitive societies.) This effect is also clearly visible in our divorce rates. Divorce rates spike in the fourth year of marriage for couples with only one child, and seven years when the couple has two children. (Hence the origin of the term, "the seven-year itch.") Today, parental investment should continue through a child's 18th year at least, but we apparently are still stuck in the rythms of our evolutionary past.

Now, Frank says society should reduce divorce rates. Here is an excellent point that he needs to take into account in any strategy to prolong marriages. And that is the fact that marriage is generally a good deal for men, but a bad one for women.

This finding is consistent in all studies about marriage. Demographer Paul Glick estimates: "Being married is about twice as advantageous to men as to women in terms of continued survival." It is widely known, for example, that men's mental health improves significantly -- even spectacularly -- upon marriage, whereas for women, it generally deteriorates. Single men suffer from nearly twice as many severe neurotic problems, including depression and nervous breakdowns, as single women. The suicide rate is also twice as high for single men as for married men. Married men live longer than their single counterparts, and if they have children, they live even longer.

The opposite is true for women. Married men also earn more and enjoy greater career success than single men, but the opposite is true for women. Of course, these are only correlations, not causes and effects, and scholars certainly agree that women tend to select men who are happier, healthier and more successful. But there is a self-reinforcing cycle at work here. In the business world, for example, it is considered a stigma for an aspiring male executive to be unmarried; ironically, the glass ceiling is just as real for single men as it is for women and minorities.

For women, marriage is a mixed bag with more downs than ups. A 14-year review of the U.S. National Survey found that single women in their twenties and thirties experienced an 11 percent climb in happiness, whereas their married sisters experienced a decline of more than 6 percent. A 1990 Virginia Slims poll found that 60 percent of single women believed they were much happier than their married friends and that their lives were "a lot easier." One University of North Carolina study found that women were more likely to suffer from problems with alcohol before a divorce than after it, and that divorce actually reduces the risk of alcoholism in those women who are at risk. Married women are about 20 percent more depressed than single women, and suffer from about three times the number of severe neuroses. After tracking women for three decades, the Mills Longitudinal Study found that married women suffered from a greater and wider variety of physical and mental ailments than single women. Another longitudinal study by Pauline Sears and Anne Barbee found that single women had the greatest satisfaction in their lives, and single women with jobs had the greatest satisfaction of all. Two renowned mental health researchers, Gerald Klerman and Myrna Weissman, conducted a massive review of women's depression literature, and tested for everything from genetic causes to PMS to birth control pills. They found that female depression derives from only two primary causes: low social status and marriage.

Not surprisingly, up to two-thirds of all divorced women say they were the ones who wanted the divorce, as compared to only a third of all men. A 1982 study found that a year after divorce, a majority of women, but only a minority of men, said they were happier and had more self-respect. This proportion increases every year after marriage. Five years after a divorce, about two-thirds of the women, but only half of the men, said they were happier. After ten years, 80 percent of the women, but 50 percent of the men, agreed that it was the right decision. The experience of a first marriage also leads more men than women to try a second marriage. Men also form the overwhelming majority of singles clubs, dating services and personal columns. And, contrary to the myth that men only seek short-term sexual flings, most men are intently searching for marriage. The nation's largest dating service, Great Expectations, reported that 93 percent of its male members were seeking marriage or a long-term commitment; only 7 percent said they were seeking dates with many different people.

The reason why marriage is so beneficial to men and detrimental to women is not hard to find. Most marriages are based on inequality -- namely, the man's domination of the woman. Often, such domination is explicit from the very beginning, starting with the preacher's admonition, "Wives, obey your husbands." Because people are primarily self-interested, those in power tend to look out for themselves more than others. Husbands translate their power into personal privilege in many ways: unequal work loads, unequal work prestige, unequal leisure time, unequal personal finances, unequal input in family decisions.

Men like Frank who complain that divorce is ruining our social fabric could reduce the divorce rate by equalizing power relations within marriage. But recently Frank wrote an article defending the Promise Keepers, a male organization whose leaders tell their male followers: "Don't ask your wife to let you have your leadership, just take it!" To promote such despotic marriages and then whine about the divorce rate is truly amusing.

Steve Kangas

-- posted by SteveK

Top 3. Nov 12, 1997 4:36 PM

» Frank_Monaldo - Dear Steve and Dan, My hidden agenda is very simple. If I cou

Dear Steve and Dan,

My hidden agenda is very simple. If I could just get Steve married with children, he might not have the time to write comments that are longer than my original essay.

Steve, your assessment of the relative advantages of marriage to women and men is interesting, but not my primary concern. Although one might be able to argue that divorce between couples without children may have negative social effect, it was not the point of my essays. Couples without children will enjoy or suffer alone the joys and sadness of marriage and divorce. My concern is the children of divorce.

There are chilren of divorced families who turn out great and children of intact marriages that are dysfunctional, but as a whole divorce is
a tragedy for children. You can not spend any time with children, without noticing this.

I do not believe that all people ought to get married or even remained married, but the marrige covenant is particularly important when children are involved. If a marriage is not stable, those people ought to avoid children. Once children are involved, the threshold for divorce should increase.

Steve, I never meant to suggest that economic stress is unrelated to divorce or family breakout. However, during the 1960s, the decade you traditionally argue was a time of social/economic improvement, the divorce rate increased. There may be an economic factors, but culture seems critical

You state that second marriages are happier. This may true, but how were the statistics gathered? If I compare second marriages with the first marriages of those who enter second marriages, of course the second marriages are happier. Second marriages, almost be definition, presume an unhappy first marriage. Given a near 100% probability that the marriages that ended in divorces were unhappy, any improvement in the second would make it appear that second marriages are happier. Perhaps the statistics corrected for this. I am just asking.

I am going to highlight this quote:

A 1990 Virginia Slims poll found that
60 percent of single women believed they were much happier than their married
friends and that their lives were "a lot easier."

This is probably the only time that Steve will ever give credience to any statement from a tobacco company. Single women may or may not be happier, but I am not sure I would cite a poll by Virginia Slims to prove it. Is this the opposite of the Devil quoting scripture for his purpose.

There is not need to repeat of the Promise Keepers arguments, but it seems that the changes long term happiness of people (men and woman) as a
consequence of participation in Promise Keepers is a fair measure of the value of that orgainisation.

I will close with a story. When I once pointed out to my wife that married people lived longer, she responded that perhaps it just seemed longer.

Regards,
Frank

Frank Monaldo

Contributing Editor for Conservative Politcs

E-mail: fmm@us.net

Personal Homepage: http://home.us.net/~fmm/

-- posted by Frank_Monaldo

Top 4. Nov 14, 1997 12:01 PM

» SteveK - Frank: It is another conservative myth that divorce negativel

Frank:

It is another conservative myth that divorce negatively affects kids. While it is true that kids from divorced homes suffer more problems than from intact homes, the fact is that an abusive, unhappy or dysfunctional marriage is just as damaging to children's psychological health. Here are a few points to consider:

Mavis Hetherington is one of the most respected authorities on divorce and children: her statistics are on the high end of divorce-related problems in kids. And even she admits: "20 to 25 percent of kids from divorced families have behavior problems -- about twice as many as the 10 percent from nondivorced families. You can say, 'Wow, that's terrible,' but it means that 75 to 80 percent of kids from divorced families aren't having problems, that the vast majority of them are doing well."

And what about the percentage of kids who are experiencing problems after divorce? Well, it turns out that they were experiencing problems before the divorce too. Researchers have found that eight to twelve years before divorce, parents were already reporting significant behavoiral problems with their children. The researchers conclude that "the association between divorce and poor parent-child relationships may be spurious; the low quality of the parents' marriage may be a cause of both." Another possibility: severely troubled children may help to precipitate a divorce, further distorting this statistic.

Furthermore, studies show that when children stay in highly-conflicted marriages, they do even worse than children from divorced families.

As for second marriages being happier, your statistical objection misses the point, misses it by a clean mile. The point is that people who used to be miserable are now happy. If we still stigmatized divorce, then these people would still be trapped in bad marriages.

Finally, you say: "There is not need to repeat of the Promise Keepers arguments, but it seems that the changes long term happiness of people (men and woman) as a consequence of participation in Promise Keepers is a fair measure of the value of that orgainisation."

And what statistical evidence do you have to support this unfounded assertion?

The Promise Keepers are essentially advocating a 50's type family: a married man and woman, with the father the head of the family, and the mother staying at home and raising the kids. Well, this was tried in the 50s, and the results were so oppressive, repressive and stifling that women launched the social revolutions of the 60s to escape it. I am entirely sure that your claim that the Promise Keepers are making their women happy is mere wishful thinking.

Steve Kangas

-- posted by SteveK

Top 5. Nov 16, 1997 9:32 AM

» Frank_Monaldo - Steve, <br> I believe you have missed my point. To argue tha

Steve,

I believe you have missed my point. To argue that children of divorce would be as bad off if their parents were compelled to remain together is to invoke the fallacy of ``false alternatives.''

Certainly the same cultural deficiency that encourages divorces (or at least fails to nurture marriages) also encourages people not to work sufficiently hard on maintaining a relationship long before a divorce occurs.

My call was simply that people should be encouraged to work as hard as possible to nurture families. This would both reduce divorces and make marriages that do stay together more enriching. Constantly making excuses for why marriages do not work is not the same as finding modalities that will allow them to succeed.

Perhaps I did not explain what I was saying about the Promise Keepers sufficiently clearly. I was not making a claim about how well the Promise Keepers were doing. I am not even sure where such empirical evidence would exist. I was just saying, and I think you were implicitly agreeing, that the criteria to measure the Promise Keeprs by is whether they help the marriages of their participants function better and more rewarding for men, women, and children than these marriages would have otherwise been.

Frank

Frank Monaldo

Contributing Editor for Conservative Politcs

E-mail: fmm@us.net

Personal Homepage: http://home.us.net/~fmm/

-- posted by Frank_Monaldo

Top 6. Nov 16, 1997 6:18 PM

» SteveK - Frank: "People should be encouraged to work as hard as possib

Frank:

"People should be encouraged to work as hard as possible to nurture families."

And how are you going to achieve that?

If you stigmatize divorce -- which is the same thing as idealizing life-long marriages -- then you have the 50s all over again. As I've already reported, polls show that marriages today are happier than they were in the 50s. In other words, we've already tried the "work at it as hard as you can" route. The problem is that you can't work harder to improve something that is fundamentally flawed. If you get a cat and dog married to each other, they're going to fight, and all the exhortations in the world to "just try harder" aren't going to overcome the basic incompatibility. It's better to split up the cat and dog and pair them into either two cats or two dogs. (Somewhere beneath this goofy analogy lies a serious point.)

Also, it's not reasonable to exhort people to "just try harder." It's not just society that praises marriage and stigmatizes divorce -- there are profound individual incentives and disincentives that are built into our very genes. If you had a man and a woman stranded on a desert island, absent any society at all, this couple would still feel profound incentives to fall in love, share each other's company and raise a family. And if the relationship ever soured (say, they fought constantly, even violently), they would feel intense sorrow, loneliness and failure by going their separate ways. These individual, genetic incentives are sufficiently powerful that the costs of marriage would have to become pretty high before they exceeded the costs of divorce. And all this is before society piles on with peer pressure and social stigma. By adding stigma to divorce, society raises the cost of divorce and therefore traps more couples in bad marriages.

For these reasons, I don't find Frank's arguments credible. In fact, they are at odds with everything I know about human psychology.

Steve Kangas

-- posted by SteveK